He Bangs

First of all, please accept my apology for the rather Sun-like, obnoxious title to this post, I couldn't help it.


"Hoy ACEPTO MI HOMOSEXUALIDAD como un regalo que me da la vida"

That's right ladies. Ricky Martin is gay.

If you're the "what a waste" type, then please refrain. Everyone's really wondering why you think you could get him anyway. Oh what a shame, now he's gay, I'll NEVER get to have glorious vida loca sex with him Get.a.grip.

Mr Martin, you've angered me. That's right. To be frank, I've only just realised this point and, it's not down to your sexuality. Admittedly, it is your recent 'revelation' that has placed you, temporarily, back in the spotlight but no, it's not this that has rubbed me up the wrong way. So to speak. It's the fact that when I heard the echoes of 'Ricky Martin is gay!' in my office earlier on today, the first thing that happened, in my mind, was the automatic reeling off of song titles.

It sort of went into overdrive with latino passion based melodia, if you can call it that... (HYPERLINKED for your aural pleasure)

"She Bangs"
"Shake your Bon Bon"
"Livin' La Vida Loca"
"Nobody Wants To Be Lonely"
"Un Dos Tres Maria" (alright, maybe I shouldn't admit that one)

I even went on to relish in the irony of the track "Gay Messiah" - the first wave of disgust being the fact that I knew of the song itself, second wave born from the shame of my reaction. Tee-hee GAY Messiah, GAY. Cause he's gay, get it? Oh.

I'm having second thoughts about this post. Might as well get posted, there's not much pondering going on this week. Today however, I remembered just how much I like the British seaside - I was going to do a blog post all about it, then realised it really was very boring. However, I've got this photo to share - look how happy he is.

xxxxx

Question

Hello,

For this blog post only, I'm trying out a new format. I'll ask you a question. Tell you the answer and go on to babble mindlessly consisting mostly of my own opinions and outrage at said answer.

Clear your mind and imagine you have power. Commercial, cultural and influential power. Then answer this question, if you had to save one of the following, which would it be?

1) Snog, Marry, Avoid?

"Makeunder show, which sees POD transform OTT girls and boys into natural beauties."


'POD' our main protagonist, is a rather cutting and judgemental voiceover who starts off by knocking our guest down a peg or two. Quick quips and offensive surveys make up the majority of Pod's opening gambit and then, post makeover, said voiceover goes into self congratulatory 'told you so' mode in a bid to celebrate natural beauty. Yawn.

2) BBC Radio 6 Music

"BBC Radio 6 Music brings together the cutting edge music of today, the iconic and groundbreaking music of the past 40 years."


BBC Radio 6 plays 'alternative' genres of music including indie, rock, jazz, hip hop, funk and classic dance. Does what it says on the tin, BBC Radio 6 - only available on digital media, although following the same structure as Radio 1 and 2, it avoids mainstream and showcases both new (Jonsi's live session on Lauren Laverne is a bit of a favourite) and old (archives Peel Sessions).


3) BBC Asian Network

"The Sound of Asian Britain, Bollywood, Bhangra, British Asian News & Entertainment"


BBC Asian Network is made up from music and news from the main urban areas where there are significant communities with a background in the South Asian diaspora. BBC Asian Network broadcast mainly in English, but also have programmes in five south Asian languages – Hindi/Urdu, Punjabi, Bengali, Gujurati and the Mirpuri dialect of the Potwari language.

Hello Mark Thompson, director general of the whole.of.the.BBC.

Mr Thompson may have valid points concerning audience figures and ratings. However, think back to 1922 when the BBC was first created. We may have moved on from Reithian times but the BBC was created to be a public service broadcaster. Within this, a certain responsibility to educate the masses. Again yes, we have moved on from the moral high ground of Reithianism but, it would do no harm to pay a little attention to ethics of public service.

I digress.

What I am trying to say is, the BBC has a national, if not, international responsibility to educate it's audience on a political level, socially and culturally. Of the above, assuming you're not born with pound signs for eyes (Mark Thompson), I think we're all quite aware of which two options offer a plethera of aural pleasures. Where Snog, Marry, Avoid? may be considered an altogether more visually gratifying experience, come on now, I'm trying to be serious.

This comparison of the three is unrealistic I admit, different formats, different audience sizes, different financial figures altogether. However, from an outsider's point of view, it's difficult to avoid the 'why keep this and not this' element. WHY indeed keep Snog, Marry, Avoid? but not BBC Radio 6 or BBC Asian Network, two of the most culturally prevalent channels? The answer can not be simple. Although it is isn't it. In my eyes, it is. Just don't axe them Mark, please. Thanks.

привет!

Michael.Bloody.Landy.

To start off, I'd like to point out that I'm not trying to be some inelegant, distasteful scientist (that's about as opposite to elegantly cultivated artist that I can muster up) - I appreciate art.



I appreciate thought behind pieces and I appreciate the thought behind THIS piece too. When I say this piece, I mean Michael Landy's 'artbin'. Patrons are invited to throw their unwanted (modern) art into his large glass bin, which is in fact a room. Perfect for cameras/coverage/exposures eh? Waste art has thus far consisted of pieces from Damien Hirst, Tracy Emin and Peter Blake. Pieces that in actual fact, have the potential to fetch thousands. I understand that this contributes to the ever running 'Is Modern Art rubbish?' argument, generally fought for by traditionalists and classicists the world over.

Argument 1/// What the aforementioned fail to realise is the most basic of artistic concepts, the fact that interpretation is everything. Ideology and politics are all well and good but, it's down to the individual how they are to interpret the piece. This reminds me of that bit at the start of The Da Vinci Code (a weak and vulgar comparison, but one that's amusing me all the same) - you know, where Tom Hanks is flashing those symbols on screen and the lecture theatre of students are crying out their own interpretations? To say 'Modern art is rubbish' to me, a mere social onlooker, seems a little juvenile if not infantile.

I.don't.like.that.that.is.rubbish.

I.don't.like.birds.they.are.rubbish. (True)

I.hate.sprouts.they.are.rubbish.

Yes?

Argument 2/// No matter what you feel about these pieces, isn't it a bit vulgar to create a 'bin' and dispose of anything that isn't to your own taste? I sometimes offer myself up to the argument that 'art is ego' but this seems to be that very ego's anti-fucking-christ.

Argument 3/// These pieces, some more than others, they're worth a lot of money. Wouldn't the whole effort of Landy's be far more meaningful and worthy if he found some way to make money from this first, before the chucking away. Then, taking said money and donating to charities, rendering this event as something worthier than a bunch of ego's getting together and licking yoghurt off each other's massive egos? I understand that this is probably a part of it. Maybe a pretty big part but charitable giving? Doesn't that counteract any negative feelings Landy may have about generating money from his exhibition? Saying this, I'm sure Landy isn't that adverse to a little cash on the side. Something's got to keep him in full stock of polo necks.

Argument 4/// "Art Bin is about failure. Either within particular art work, or more generally in artists' practice: nobody discards art which has some sort of intrinsic value, so the bin becomes a monument to creative failure". Michael Landy, 2010. Well well, I wouldn't really call anything that is representative of that Hirst skull creative failure, would you? My guess is, Hirst and Emin shoved his head down the toilet and robbed his dinner money at some snazz art do, so he's showing them. Aren't you Michael? Bloody showing them.

Argument 5/// If Michael, if this is about celebrating artistic failure, then why are you contributing to the infamity of the pieces? They not only resonate in their own right, but now, thanks to you, Landy, you crusader you, they contribute to the post modernity of collaborative, contemporary art. You seem to have shot yourself in the foot, mate.

I only actually have 5 arguments. My 6th would be something along the lines of Michael Landy chucking himself in the bin, but I won't sink. I think Jean Baudrillard has hit the nail on the head this time:

"A negative judgment gives you more satisfaction than praise, provided it smacks of jealousy."

What do you reckon, Michael?

xxxxxxx

PS. Today's greeting is Russian, this has to be my favourite.

Ciao!

"The Archbishop of Vienna today said priestly celibacy could be one of the causes of the sex abuse scandals to hit the Catholic church."

That's taken from here - which is slightly too in tune with my thought processes this week. This is because, I was planning on a blog post about just how many Vatican related sex scandals there's been in The Guardian over the last week or so. This was the opinion that I was about to conclude with but it seems they've summed it up for themselves.

So. Turns out the Pope's brother was involved in something, another Cardinal or other has been outed as quite the gentleman of the night and so on and so forth. I'll be honest, I don't think any of us were thinking "I wonder why this has happened..." or, genuinely "That's odd, for a church to be involved in a sex/paedophilia/prostitution ring scandal" - delete as appropriate, the alternatives will apply a week on anyway.

My reaction towards each of these articles (which I would list as evidence, but if you're reading this blog, still, then we'll call this a trust exercise) was the same sort of reaction when discovering the daily Princess Diana related article in the Daily Express. It's sort of anticipated.

Hang about though.
1) I'm not pinning this solely on The Guardian, although they do seem to present the facts rather than headlines such as 'SICK I-TI PAEDOS' (a la, The Daily Mail) or 'CHECK THESE SEXY KIDS' (The Sun, not quite but it gave me a laugh, soz Sun/Sun readers)
2) I'm not purposely tracking Vatican sex scandals, no matter what they say.

UN CHIEN ANDALOU

Mr Dali summed it up about right in 1929. Priests, donkeys, oppression and all of that. If that film is anything to go by, which it is, it's a bloody masterpiece, then we should've seen it coming. Salvadar Dali - Sexual Nostradamus. That sounds a bit too sexy. What I'm trying to say is, these sex scandals are no longer a shock. In fact, in such contrived environments such as the Vatican, it's pretty much expected. I had a fleeting wonder of how many games of 'Soggy Biccy' have ever been played in that St. Peters. The mind boggles. Really.

As always, these thoughts are as disjointed as ever but I don't care to be honest. Grass on me. To the Pope.

xxxxxxxxx

PS. Italian . Obvs.

Tere!

Hiya.

This is a half retrospective sort of post. My main intention was to do a post about the BAFTA's and then one about the Oscars. However, that's not the case, I'm too late to pass any relevant or contextual comment on the former and, too early for the latter.

The general concensus is, the BAFTA's are a warm up ceremony for the oh so prestigious Academy Awards, 82nd this year I believe. I tend to agree. Scanning over the nominations, they're not all that different and the only definitive category for a British film is the Outstanding British Film award.

Give me a moment to get my soapbox out from the shed.

Personally, I am the opposite to patriotic. The anti-christ of Queen Victoria herself. On a cultural level, an economic level and societal level, I quite openly welcome multiculturalism, international influence and accept that with great responsibility does in fact come great power. Which is why in fact, I have a polycentric perspective on Hollywood rather than it being the devil of all international film industries. Suffice to say, the cultural clout of Hollywood film is generally lacking in style, grace and when push comes to shove, thought... on the whole it is terribly formulaeic and if vertical integration were alive today, surely it comes in the form of the Tim Burton films? Controversial? Maybe so. Soz. Again, I find myself digressing. Anyway, I can appreciate the impeccability of the Hollywood business model just as much as I can appreciate the mise en scene of Kieslowski or the leaps and structural bravery of Haneke. My point is, I'm not against Hollywood, it does what it sets out to do, make money. I'm also, in the same breath, not an Anglophile.



When it comes to the BAFTAs however. It really does get my goat. Yes, 'get my goat' - you heard. The British film industry, as it stands and in comparison, struggles through as the grey area. Not nearly as wealthy as Hollywood yet, not quite on the same level (although it's improving, this is a generalisation and if i were to conclude this in an essay, I'd prove myself wrong) ideologically, as your typical European offering. Saying that though, British film for me is something special. Whether it's being able to relate culturally, the ability to identify with the character easily or something as simple as recognising a landmark, British film has it's own unique representations and personality. Now let's look at the BAFTA nominations for best film:

Avatar
An Education
The Hurt Locker
Precious
Up in the Air

If anyone has seen An Education, you'll realise as I did that this was a sympathy nomination as it was utter gash. Let's see the Oscar nominations for best picture:

Avatar
District 9
An Education (still gash)
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
Precious
A Serious Man
Up in the Air
The Blind Side
Up

As the BAFTA's feature a couple of weeks prior to the Oscars, forgive me for presuming that they're some sort of warm up ceremony. The political similarities and metaphors that can be drawn are quite clear.

I admit, this post may have seemed to have lacked direction somewhat. This is a point that I can and have argued for hours/days/weeks/years? So this is just a slight fragment of how I feel on this matter. If you wish to challenge or, bait me further, feel free to sit me down with a beverage and hit me with all you have as, sadly, perhaps, I have a lot of wind left in my film reel shaped sails when it comes to this matter.

HMPH.

RJB xxxx

PS. Today is Estonian, 1. because I like the Estonian greeting and 2. Because I miss my friend Ulla from Estonia, she's pretty fucking brill.